"need Some Wood?" -g.w. Bush

[Guest Traci]

Quote the truth from "Factcheck.Org":

"President Bush himself would have qualified as a 'small business owner' under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." The timber interest was listed under "royalties" in his 2002 and 2003 returns, indicating President What-Me Worry? Still has an interest in said concern.

Once again our national embarrassment had no clue.

Dubya is on drugs.

Pity the man but don't vote for him.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traci@Oct 9 2004, 07:14 AM

Quote the truth from "Factcheck.Org":

"President Bush himself would have qualified as a 'small business owner' under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." The timber interest was listed under "royalties" in his 2002 and 2003 returns, indicating President What-Me Worry? Still has an interest in said concern.

Once again our national embarrassment had no clue.

Dubya is on drugs.

Pity the man but don't vote for him.

Do you think he is even qualified to drive the trucks that move that timber?

Even after Kerry totally clarified his postion on Iraq and FactCheck.org (Cheney's own source) has shown how the Repubs pushed that position based on out-of-context quotes, Bush STILL keeps pounding away on that mantra (he really must be desperate.) Kerry was misled, just like the rest of the country, by the Bush administration story line. Have we all forgotten Colin Powell's show and tell at the UN. "See this little square, that is a truck moving WMD's. And see this little dot, that is a WMD lab." And we are all sitting there thinking, " Well, I quess the CIA and all its technical expertise can see something the rest of us can't." The problem is the president was in a positon to question the CIA on EXACTLY what was seen there and HOW certain they were that it was WMD's they were seeing. According to Woodward's interviews, the CIA was not at all sure that the little dots and squares were WMD's, they only said they MIGHT be. But Bush, in all his mental sophistication turned "might be" into "are". Again, either Bush is unable to make crucial fine distinctions or he is a liar and deceiver. Either way, we all lose (and some of us--like soldiers--our lives)

As to fine distinctions: It is one thing to agree that Saddam was a threat that had to be dealt with, and quite another to insist that his threat is so imminent that we have to invade NOW, without finding out just HOW imminent. But that is exactly what Bush did. But what is even more outrageous, he and his administration misled the american people into thinking that the threat was seriously more imminent than it actually was. To lead a nation into war on the basis of deliberate misrepresentation when the threat is not imminent in the WORSE kind of betrayal of the american people.

Further, Bush can't get out of his culpability by saying, "You had access to the same intelligence I did". That assertion implies that Kerry would have acted the same as Bush, and he has said clearly that he wouldn't have. Just to say that Kerry voted to give the Bush administration authority to act against Saddam is NOT the same as saying Kerry would have: 1) deliberately misled the public into thinking WMD's existed when even his own intelligence said only that they "probably" existed and that it was "likely" they existed. 2) Gone to war on the same time line--which consisted of failing to build a greater base of support internationally so that the american people are not left holding the financial bag.

Also, think about it. If Saddam were such a threat to us as to require immediate invasion as Bush wants us to think, why did the Russians not join us? He posed just as big a threat to THEM. The truth, as it comes out, and that Bush should have discovered if he had been more thourough and patient, was that there was no imminent threat and that our actions should a been much more throughly planned out. Had Bush even listened to our OWN weapon's inspectors he should have had at least serious doubts about the presence of WMD's. And as much as some people hate to admit it, we can give credit to the Clinton administration for seeing that Saddam was impotent.

Some make the argument that Saddam may not have had WMD's, but that he posed a threat as a haven for terrorists; there is even LESS evidence of that than there was for WMD's.

The justification for invasion of Iraq on the Bush-Cheney timeline is pathetic. And their continued defense of it is pathetic.

Here is what I have to say to Bush when he tries to pass the buck by saying that others had the same information he did and that only he should lead America: First, I seriously question the assertion that everyone else was privy to the same intelligence on Iraq. He had freqent if not daily briefings by every Pentagon, CIA, national security council, national security agency, FBI and state department head. Was Congress really privy to all that information? I think not. If it had been there would have been a lot less support at the outset. Even Colin Powell, was quietly opposed to rushing ahead the way Bush and Cheney wanted. He WAS priviy to most of the information and was opposed to the way Bush was proceeding. He went along at the last minute so as to not lose his job. Even Woodward's book (which is quite kind to Bush most of the time) indicates that Powell's push for more diplomacy was dismissed or ignored by the Bush guys. Third, "Mr. Bush, your presidency was focused on an invasion of Iraq from the moment you got into office. Witnesses to your early Security council meetings confirm that. It is not hard to see why you "rushed to judgement" in the war on Iraq. Fourth, You ignored the advise of your treasury secretary on economic matters, you failed to deal with important domestic issues (pushing a "just for show" educational program--which you proved was just for show when you drastically underfunded it). And you thumbed your nose at the counsel of the majority of the scientific community and the world by trashing the Kyoto accords on global warming. "

The bottomline is that Bush is responsible for the mess he has created in Iraq. He is the one that should have known there were no WMD's. IT IS HIS JOB TO KNOW. It wasn't Kerry's job to know, it wasn't even Colin Powell's job to know. It was Bush's job to know. It was Bush's job to CORRECTLY and accurately spell out our reasons for war.And he blew it. He allowed ( or perhaps intentionally) at least negligently, the american people to support a war on the basis of FALSE information. He was in the unique postion to know, and he didn't, and what is worse, he didn't even know the difference! And if he did know the difference, then he is a liar of the worse kind. The kind that gets our young men killed. Bush is one of the biggest dissasters of a president in recent history. He makes his Dad look like a major success story as president. The best thing George, Jr could do for the country is to resign.

[Snow]

Cal,

I liked your post more the first time I read it on the other thread.

Originally posted by Cal@Oct 10 2004, 07:26 AM

Kerry was misled, just like the rest of the country, by the Bush administration story line. Have we all forgotten Colin Powell's show and tell at the UN.

That's an interesting like of electionerring.

Vote for John Kerry because he was a victim. I don't particularly care for it but it is interesting nevertheless.

The bottomline is that Bush is responsible for the mess he has created in Iraq. He is the one that should have known there were no WMD's. IT IS HIS JOB TO KNOW. It wasn't Kerry's job to know, it wasn't even Colin Powell's job to know. It was Bush's job to know.

This is almost as interesting at the John Kerry-is-a-victim approach. Not true, but interesting. Ever heard of the War Powers Act of 1973?

SEC. 2. (a)

It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

Guess it was both the President's and Kerry's job to know.

[Matt]

But, Snow the implication in what Bush has said is that Kerry shouldn't have believed him!

What reason would Kerry have had for not believing his President? Or is Bush so well known for his lies that maybe Kerry should have just expected him to be telling a lie?

[Snow]

I'm not talking about what Kerry should or shouldn't have believed. Both the President and Congress had access to intelligence and both the President and Congress processed the information, made decisions about what to accept and what was credible and then both the President and Congress live with the consequences of their decisions.

What I find absurd is Cal's belief that it wasn't Kerry's (and Congresses) job to know anything but that they were simply dupes to the President's mastermind.

Fortunately for Kerry, he's got ABC news watching his back:

ABCNEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR MEMO SPARKS CONTROVERSY: BOTH SIDES NOT 'EQUALLY ACCOUNTABLE'

**Exclusive**

An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable."

The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how "Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."

But Halperin claims that Bush is hoping to "win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions."

"The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," Halperin writes.

Halperin's claim that ABCNEWS will not "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable" set off sparks in St. Louis where media players gathered to cover the second presidential debate.

Halperin states the responsibilities of the ABCNEWS staff have "become quite grave."

In August, Halperin declared online: "This is now John Kerry's contest to lose."

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 10 2004, 06:21 PM

I'm not talking about what Kerry should or shouldn't have believed. Both the President and Congress had access to intelligence and both the President and Congress processed the information, made decisions about what to accept and what was credible and then both the President and Congress live with the consequences of their decisions.

What I find absurd is Cal's belief that it wasn't Kerry's (and Congresses) job to know anything but that they were simply dupes to the President's mastermind.

Fortunately for Kerry, he's got ABC news watching his back:

ABCNEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR MEMO SPARKS CONTROVERSY: BOTH SIDES NOT 'EQUALLY ACCOUNTABLE'

**Exclusive**

An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable."

The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how "Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."

But Halperin claims that Bush is hoping to "win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions."

"The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," Halperin writes.

Halperin's claim that ABCNEWS will not "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable" set off sparks in St. Louis where media players gathered to cover the second presidential debate.

Halperin states the responsibilities of the ABCNEWS staff have "become quite grave."

In August, Halperin declared online: "This is now John Kerry's contest to lose."

Perhaps none of us know for sure exactly how to compare the intelligence that Bush was getting and what the security agencies made available to Congress. I haven't seen a good clear analysis of this. However, one thing is clear: Even if they DID have access to the same intelligence, the WAY that Bush chose to ACT on the intelligence is the real issue. This is where Bush is in error by saying that Kerry and others were wishy washy, supporting him in the Resolution and then criticizing Bush's subsequent handling of the power given to him in the resolution. What Kerry and others are saying, and much of the rest of the world for that matter, is that Bush either grossly misinterpreted the meaning of the intelligence or deliberately chose to spin it into saying that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US. There WAS plenty of room for doubt. Seeing the same intelligence data is not the same as interpreting the meaning of that data and translating it into political and military strategy. This is where Bush went wrong.

Yes, Congress was willing to give Bush power to deal with Saddam. HOW he subsequently used it was ill conceived.

What I find absurd is Cal's belief that it wasn't Kerry's (and Congresses) job to know anything but that they were simply dupes to the President's mastermind.

Is that really what I said, Snow? Did I say that it wasn't their job to know ANYTHING? Besides, don't try to tell me that any ONE member of Congress is going to get as much intelligence briefing as the president. More misinterpretation.

Further, it was the president that made the decision to use the information to invade Iraq at the time he did and the way he did--with only a meager semblance of international support, and without proper analysis of the likely consequences of a post-invasion Iraq. There were lots of concerns raised along these lines by many in Congress, inspite of their general support for a plan to deal strongly with Saddam. That does not make them wishy washy. It makes them careful and deliberate. Something the Bush people seem to know little about.

[Snow]

Cal,

You can say that Bush distorts the Kerry's wishy-washitude but to me, no great Bush fan, Kerry seems wishy-washy too. He seems to be a man driven primarily by what he wants people to think of him. Like all the goofy sports photos, he seems desperate for public approval and will take a position based upon public whim.

Whatever's Bush's shortcomings, he comes across as a man driven by a notion of what's right (in his mind) and what's wrong, not just what the public thinks of it at the moment. You all may think the wool was pulled over your eyes by a clever President Bush but I don't feel that way. From the beginning I didn't think it was ALL about WMDs or 911. I always felt that the underlying principle is that the only way to secure greater peace to to develop freedom and democracy, and sometimes to fight for it. Saddam was an instance where fighting for it was the right thing to do.

Even now that some of the assumptions have turned out to be wrong, the underlying assumption remains, regardless of what the spineless French and UN think... peace and freedom are only safe when democracy reigns.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

One of Sen. Kerry's hedges about his vote to authorize force (in terms of international law, a "conditional declaration of war") was that he intended that force would only be used with a "genuine coalition." (Meaning that France would be on board; in Senator Crapaud's universe, no coalition is genuine unless the feared pen-wielders of Compiegne are ranged in its serried ranks.)

In the winter of 2003, after nearly a year of diplomatic maneuvering, it was clear that the coalition for the Iraq campaign wasn't going to get any bigger. This being clear, and if French support were truly such a vital point, Kerry should have sponsored a bill to withdraw the authorization to use force.

He didn't -- because his present nuanced gloss "clarifying" what his original vote meant didn't yet exist. He was just going with the polls.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

FACTCHECK.ORG BACKS OFF ITS CLAIM THAT BUSH REPORTED INCOME FROM A TIMBER ENTERPRISE:

From the factcheck.org website, updating its reference to its "Need some wood?" article:

We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we  should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html

So Traci, yet again, has gone galloping off on a "Bush is a moron!" tangent, just knowing it must be true -- only to get cut off on the knees as his source acknowledges it was mistaken.

The irony of all this is that Kerry's "timber company" line was mined from Bush's (fully-disclosed) tax records. Senator Kerry has still not disclosed tax records accounting for all of his resources. (When you're using your wife's money to run for office, her tax records ought to be released, too; otherwise, disclosing the gigolo's small personal income presents a false picture of his true wealth.)

Also interestingly, it looks like the Kerrys paid a total 11% tax rate on their $5 million in income, while the Bushes paid a total 30% rate on their $500,000. If Kerry wants to tax the rich, he ought to start by paying his own fair share.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Oct 11 2004, 12:01 PM

So Traci, yet again, has gone galloping off on a "Bush is a moron!" tangent, just knowing it must be true -- only to get cut off on the knees as his source acknowledges it was mistaken.

So? He's still a moron.

[Matt]

The Bush income was only $500,000? Yeah. Right. Sure.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Matt@Oct 11 2004, 04:42 PM

The Bush income was only $500,000? Yeah. Right. Sure.

What's not to believe? The guy only managed to screw up a Major League Baseball team, couldn't find oil in Texas and now is trying his darnedest to bankrupt the entire country. That $500K was probably just the allowance he still gets from Daddy Bush.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 10 2004, 07:22 PM

Cal,

You can say that Bush distorts the Kerry's wishy-washitude but to me, no great Bush fan, Kerry seems wishy-washy too. He seems to be a man driven primarily by what he wants people to think of him. Like all the goofy sports photos, he seems desperate for public approval and will take a position based upon public whim.

Whatever's Bush's shortcomings, he comes across  as a man driven by a notion of what's right (in his mind) and what's wrong, not just what the public thinks of it at the moment. You all may think the wool was pulled over your eyes by a clever President Bush but I don't feel that way. From the beginning I didn't think it was ALL about WMDs or 911. I always felt that the underlying principle is that the only way to secure greater peace to to develop freedom and democracy, and sometimes to fight for it. Saddam was an instance where fighting for it was the right thing to do.

Even now that some of the assumptions have turned out to be wrong, the underlying assumption remains, regardless of what the spineless French and UN think... peace and freedom are only safe when democracy reigns.

In that case, Snow, I guess we had better prepare for the next invasion of some country that doesn't have our style freedom and democracy.

Fact of the matter is, Bush's response was precipitous, poorly planned out, lacking in perspective. When I hear Bush say the word "freedom", I can't help but wonder, "Is it really the job of the united states to start wars of liberation all over the world? Is that what the majority of the american public wants. We supported Bush in Iraq at first, because he had fed us the line of WMD's." How much support do you think Bush would get from the American public if he had been honest and said, "We think their might be WMD's in Iraq, but were not really sure. We think Saddam may pose an immediate threat, but were not really sure. Saddam may have serious links to Al Queda, but were not sure about that." THAT would have been the real truth. Would we be at war right now if that is what we had been told?

If you want to speculate about likely scenarios in Iraq had we not invaded: First, it still remains to be seen whether we can do much to change the basic way people live in Iraq, even with Saddam gone. We don't know yet whether the Iraqi people are going to be better off. As it stands right now, that is debatable. I hope that they are, for heaven sake. But only time will tell on that.

Second, had we not invaded, there is serious doubt that Saddam would have lasted all that much longer. He IS aging just like the rest. Whether his sons could have held the iron fist over Iraq that Saddam did is questionable. I think it would have been quite likely that Iraq was going to be reduced to the tribal infighting that we see now. With one small ( and I really mean big) difference: The United States wouldn't look like the world's biggest buffoons! And we may have energized Al Queda and the terrorist factions way beyond what would have existed without our meddling. I will agree that only time will tell.

We resisted the promptings of the "far right" to do premptive strike on Russia after WWII and invading China after the Korean War. By doing so, we averted possible nuclear war. Restraint and deliberateness, coupled with hard diplomacy brought about a peaceful settling of the scores. You can say that American toughness, a la Reagan, WON the cold war,and I don't have a problem with that, but that is really just fluff. It was really restraint that made it possible not to have a dissastrous confrontation that would have made the Reagan peace mute. We could have all been radioactive instead, had we listened to the "far right".

Restraint and more careful planning could have averted this mess, but we will never really know now.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Matt@Oct 11 2004, 03:42 PM

The Bush income was only $500,000? Yeah. Right. Sure.

My mistake. The Bushes' 2001 tax return (on which my source was based) actually states their income as $711,000, of which they paid $250,000 in taxes.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Oct 11 2004, 05:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Oct 11 2004, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Matt@Oct 11 2004, 03:42 PM

The Bush income was only $500,000? Yeah. Right. Sure.

My mistake. The Bushes' 2001 tax return (on which my source was based) actually states their income as $711,000, of which they paid $250,000 in taxes.

Was that gross income? Must have been. That's an effective tax rate of 35.16%. Ouch!!!